Waikato RC 12 January 2012 – R 8
ID: JCA17057
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 12 January 2012
Meet Chair:
GJones
Meet Committee Member 1:
JHolloway
Race Date:
2012/01/12
Race Number:
R 8
Decision:
The charge is therefore proved.
Penalty:
The committee suspends Mr McDonald for 5 riding days commencing after racing on the 20th January 2012 until the conclusion of racing on 27th January 2012. We have taken into account that Mr McDonald is a national rider and he has advised us that he had an offer to ride at the Gore meeting on 26 January 2012. This meeting is therefore included within the 5 day suspension period.
Charge:
The Information alleged that Mr McDonald breached Rule 683(1)(d) by “permitting his mount ‘Keep Winning’ to shift inwards near the 1900 metres when not sufficiently clear of dictating ‘Roamin’ inwards crowding ‘Coffee Club’ (S Shirahama) and Gallivant (J Waddell) which were checked”.
Facts:
Mr Oatham demonstrated the incident by way of head, side and rear view video footage to the Judicial Control Authority Committee (the ‘Committee”). Firstly, he identified the horses involved in this incident as Keep Winning (J McDonald), Roamin (L Innes), Coffee Club (S Shirahama) and Gallivant (J Waddell). Mr Oatham described to the committee each horse's starting position relative to each other and their colours.
He said that the incident concerned occurred at about the 1900 metre mark, shortly after the start of the race. Mr McDonalds mount; Keep Winning jumped from a barrier position outside of Roamin and endeavoured to take up a position closer to the running rail. Mr Inness made some effort to maintain a straight line, but his line was dictated to by Mr McDonalds mount. Mr Oatham said that this was due to the fact that Mr McDonald was crossing at a sharp angle. As a consequence, Mr Oatham stated that the positions of both Mr Sharihama and Mr Waddell became tight. Mr Waddell’s mount was severely checked and lost about 3 lengths.
Mr Oatham demonstrated by way of side on video footage that Mr McDonald was not sufficiently clear of Roamin and estimated that at that point was only ½ to ¾ lengths clear. He further stated that Mr Innes was unable to relieve the pressure on the horses inside of him due to Mr McDonald’s actions. As well as the mounts of Mr Sharihama and Mr Waddell being checked Mr Oatham said that other horses on the inside were also slightly tightened. And the dictation continued even after these horses were crowded.
Mr Oatham stated that once Mr McDonald cleared Roamin, Mr Innes moved his mount outwards in order to relieve inward pressure to other horses.
Mr Oatham further stated that although neither Keep Winning nor Roamin came into contact with each other, it was the steward’s view that Mr McDonald came in on a sharp angle which he misjudged.
Mr McDonald had no questions of Mr Oatham in cross examination.
The informant called Mr Innes to given evidence. Mr Innes stated that he was the rider of Roamin and that shortly after the start of the race his mount suffered tightening by the horse on his outside ridden by Mr McDonald. He said that the tightening occurred when Mr McDonalds mount was about ¾ of a length in front of him. He further stated that he was not in a position to switch out across the heels of Mr McDonalds mount.
Mr McDonald did not ask any questions of Mr Innes in relation to his evidence.
Mr McDonald demonstrated his interpretation of the incident by way of available video footage. He told the committee that there was always at least a horse width between his mount and Roamin until he crossed over to the fence. Mr McDonald said that Mr Innes never straightened his mount as he crossed the field and that there was no dictating on his part. He further stated that the runners that were squeezed were three lengths behind his mount and he was unaware that they were being tightened.
Mr McDonald said that he could only see Mr Innes on his inside and reaffirmed that Mr Innes never straightened his mount and there was always a clear horse-width between the two.
Mr McDonald was asked by the committee to demonstrate his proposition by way of video. In doing so Mr McDonald said that he was simply following Mr Innes’ mount across the face of the field. He reiterated that Mr Innes was in part responsible for the interference because there was also a horse-width gap and Mr Innes made no attempt to straighten his mount.
Mr McDonald said that Mr Innes at no stage called out to him and that he put no pressure on his whatsoever. He said that his argument rested on the fact that he simply glided over to the fence as a result of being guided by Mr Innes’ mount and “I gave him heaps of room the whole time”.
Mr Coles did not ask Mr McDonald any questions as a result of his evidence.
Submissions for Decision:
In summing up for the informant Mr Coles submitted that the evidence and video footage is clear and it is a matter for the committee to assess whether or not Mr Innes could have straightened up his mount to relieve the inward pressure.
In summing up Mr McDonald submitted that there was enough room for Mr Innes to have straightened his mount and the interference resulted because he did not straighten.
Reasons for Decision:
The committee carefully made an independent assessment of the available video footage and the evidence of all parties. It is the assessment of the committee that Mr McDonald allowed his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of Roamin. As a result Mr Innes’ mount was dictated to by Mr McDonald. The consequences were that Roamin did continue to shift inwards and there was crowding to Coffee Club and Gallivant. Gallivant was most affected and was severely checked.
The committee accepts that throughout this manoeuvre there was approximately a clear horse-width between both Keep Winning and Roamin. But, Mr McDonald appears to have placed too much emphasis on being guided by Mr Innes as opposed exercising his own judgement and weighing up the situation himself. On that basis the committee finds that Mr McDonald did not exercise that standard of care that a senior jockey of his standing would exercise in the circumstances of this incident.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Coles submitted that the breach was mid to low range. He said that Mr McDonald had an exceptional riding record in New Zealand in the past 12 months in relation to this rule, albeit that earlier in the day he had incurred a 3 day suspension for a breach of this particular rule.
Mr Coles submitted it was the view of the stewards that the committee should consider a 5 day suspension in this case.
Mr McDonald made no submissions as to penalty. He said that he had confirmed riding commitments up to and including 14 January 2012.
Reasons for Penalty:
The committee independently reviewed the video film, the evidence presented and the submissions of Mr Coles and Mr McDonald. We assessed the breach as being at mid-point in terms of carelessness and we also took into account the resultant impact of the interference.
The committee accepts that Mr McDonald has had an excellent race riding record in New Zealand.
The Penalty Guide for Committees establishes the recommended starting point for careless riding at 5 days suspension. In this particular case there are no compelling reasons as to why we ought to deviate from this starting point.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: c7905c326041a9b8e5c24c80be10869f
informantnumber: 2020
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 01/01/2012
hearing_title: Waikato RC 12 January 2012 - R 8
charge:
The Information alleged that Mr McDonald breached Rule 683(1)(d) by “permitting his mount ‘Keep Winning’ to shift inwards near the 1900 metres when not sufficiently clear of dictating ‘Roamin’ inwards crowding ‘Coffee Club’ (S Shirahama) and Gallivant (J Waddell) which were checked”.
facts:
Mr Oatham demonstrated the incident by way of head, side and rear view video footage to the Judicial Control Authority Committee (the ‘Committee”). Firstly, he identified the horses involved in this incident as Keep Winning (J McDonald), Roamin (L Innes), Coffee Club (S Shirahama) and Gallivant (J Waddell). Mr Oatham described to the committee each horse's starting position relative to each other and their colours.
He said that the incident concerned occurred at about the 1900 metre mark, shortly after the start of the race. Mr McDonalds mount; Keep Winning jumped from a barrier position outside of Roamin and endeavoured to take up a position closer to the running rail. Mr Inness made some effort to maintain a straight line, but his line was dictated to by Mr McDonalds mount. Mr Oatham said that this was due to the fact that Mr McDonald was crossing at a sharp angle. As a consequence, Mr Oatham stated that the positions of both Mr Sharihama and Mr Waddell became tight. Mr Waddell’s mount was severely checked and lost about 3 lengths.
Mr Oatham demonstrated by way of side on video footage that Mr McDonald was not sufficiently clear of Roamin and estimated that at that point was only ½ to ¾ lengths clear. He further stated that Mr Innes was unable to relieve the pressure on the horses inside of him due to Mr McDonald’s actions. As well as the mounts of Mr Sharihama and Mr Waddell being checked Mr Oatham said that other horses on the inside were also slightly tightened. And the dictation continued even after these horses were crowded.
Mr Oatham stated that once Mr McDonald cleared Roamin, Mr Innes moved his mount outwards in order to relieve inward pressure to other horses.
Mr Oatham further stated that although neither Keep Winning nor Roamin came into contact with each other, it was the steward’s view that Mr McDonald came in on a sharp angle which he misjudged.
Mr McDonald had no questions of Mr Oatham in cross examination.
The informant called Mr Innes to given evidence. Mr Innes stated that he was the rider of Roamin and that shortly after the start of the race his mount suffered tightening by the horse on his outside ridden by Mr McDonald. He said that the tightening occurred when Mr McDonalds mount was about ¾ of a length in front of him. He further stated that he was not in a position to switch out across the heels of Mr McDonalds mount.
Mr McDonald did not ask any questions of Mr Innes in relation to his evidence.
Mr McDonald demonstrated his interpretation of the incident by way of available video footage. He told the committee that there was always at least a horse width between his mount and Roamin until he crossed over to the fence. Mr McDonald said that Mr Innes never straightened his mount as he crossed the field and that there was no dictating on his part. He further stated that the runners that were squeezed were three lengths behind his mount and he was unaware that they were being tightened.
Mr McDonald said that he could only see Mr Innes on his inside and reaffirmed that Mr Innes never straightened his mount and there was always a clear horse-width between the two.
Mr McDonald was asked by the committee to demonstrate his proposition by way of video. In doing so Mr McDonald said that he was simply following Mr Innes’ mount across the face of the field. He reiterated that Mr Innes was in part responsible for the interference because there was also a horse-width gap and Mr Innes made no attempt to straighten his mount.
Mr McDonald said that Mr Innes at no stage called out to him and that he put no pressure on his whatsoever. He said that his argument rested on the fact that he simply glided over to the fence as a result of being guided by Mr Innes’ mount and “I gave him heaps of room the whole time”.
Mr Coles did not ask Mr McDonald any questions as a result of his evidence.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
In summing up for the informant Mr Coles submitted that the evidence and video footage is clear and it is a matter for the committee to assess whether or not Mr Innes could have straightened up his mount to relieve the inward pressure.
In summing up Mr McDonald submitted that there was enough room for Mr Innes to have straightened his mount and the interference resulted because he did not straighten.
reasonsfordecision:
The committee carefully made an independent assessment of the available video footage and the evidence of all parties. It is the assessment of the committee that Mr McDonald allowed his mount to shift inwards when not sufficiently clear of Roamin. As a result Mr Innes’ mount was dictated to by Mr McDonald. The consequences were that Roamin did continue to shift inwards and there was crowding to Coffee Club and Gallivant. Gallivant was most affected and was severely checked.
The committee accepts that throughout this manoeuvre there was approximately a clear horse-width between both Keep Winning and Roamin. But, Mr McDonald appears to have placed too much emphasis on being guided by Mr Innes as opposed exercising his own judgement and weighing up the situation himself. On that basis the committee finds that Mr McDonald did not exercise that standard of care that a senior jockey of his standing would exercise in the circumstances of this incident.
Decision:
The charge is therefore proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Coles submitted that the breach was mid to low range. He said that Mr McDonald had an exceptional riding record in New Zealand in the past 12 months in relation to this rule, albeit that earlier in the day he had incurred a 3 day suspension for a breach of this particular rule.
Mr Coles submitted it was the view of the stewards that the committee should consider a 5 day suspension in this case.
Mr McDonald made no submissions as to penalty. He said that he had confirmed riding commitments up to and including 14 January 2012.
reasonsforpenalty:
The committee independently reviewed the video film, the evidence presented and the submissions of Mr Coles and Mr McDonald. We assessed the breach as being at mid-point in terms of carelessness and we also took into account the resultant impact of the interference.
The committee accepts that Mr McDonald has had an excellent race riding record in New Zealand.
The Penalty Guide for Committees establishes the recommended starting point for careless riding at 5 days suspension. In this particular case there are no compelling reasons as to why we ought to deviate from this starting point.
penalty:
The committee suspends Mr McDonald for 5 riding days commencing after racing on the 20th January 2012 until the conclusion of racing on 27th January 2012. We have taken into account that Mr McDonald is a national rider and he has advised us that he had an offer to ride at the Gore meeting on 26 January 2012. This meeting is therefore included within the 5 day suspension period.
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: J McDonald - Licensed Jockey of KEEP WINNING
Otherperson: L Innes - Licensed Jockey of ROAMIN, Mr J Oatham - Stipendiary Steward
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 78ccbd388d8657ab4e1faa68449cf328
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R 8
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: a9e3c2c5e7733888065165f7fe1d6ce6
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 12/01/2012
meet_title: Waikato RC - 12 January 2012
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: GJones
meet_pm1: JHolloway
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikato RC